Georganne Chapin, NYDailyNews.com, reports that the deranged bill banning the ban on newborn circumcision was recently signed into California state law by governor Jerry Brown. This a powerful whack-a-mole response from overzealous legislators with regard to a ballot proposal floated earlier this year (see my related post, End genital mutilation now). It wasn’t enough that a Superior Judge ordered the initiative off the ballot. Legislators too wanted their chance to thumb their noses at California public opinion and succeeded. Screw the populace!
In her piece, Georganne takes on several of the common excuses people throw around to condone and continue the archaic disfigurement of infant genitalia. Is it really so hard to see that circumcision is at best a cosmetic procedure performed in the absence of patient consent? The foreskin has a role in the health of the body and circumcision quite literally RIPS IT OFF. While severe complications including penile amputation and infant death are rare, it cannot be said loud enough that EVERY CIRCUMCISION IS DESTRUCTIVE.
It is truly a sad day for Californians that their collective voice has been silenced with regard to this issue. Apparently their legislators feel that they are either too ignorant or too profane to permit public debate.
Related posts
- 9/3/11 – Newborn male infant circumcision declining in U.S. says CDC
- 6/24/11 – The professional imperative for obstetrician-gynecologists to discontinue newborn male circumcision.
- 6/4/11 – End genital mutilation now
- 11/26/10 – Doctor and hospital sued for circumcision
- 9/26/10 – Are you REALLY SURE you want your OB/GYN to cut your little boy?
- 3/24/10 – Say NO to infant male circumcision!
- 1/11/10 – Throwing wrenches at the gears
James Pate, MD 
“Is it really so hard to see that circumcision is at best a cosmetic procedure performed in the absence of patient consent?”
That is putting it far too mildly. To be honest and truthful, circumcision is a harmful act imposing a surgical reduction of the penis without consent, that harms and scars the penis of an infant or child FOR LIFE, often with deep and long lasting psychological ramifications.
LikeLike
Several states now have laws that will enblae men up to age 25 to file a lawsuit against the doctor/hospital for circumcisions performed in the last few years. Many states currently require a lawsuit to be filed by the time the person turns 21 (3 years after age of majority) for things done to them as a child. Since many 21 year old males are still dependent on their parents for financial help (college expenses, etc), they are reluctant to file lawsuits over a circumcision that their parents gave consent for. Now, in some states, it will be much easier for today’s babies to file a lawsuit when they are an independent adult. Doctors/hospitals should consider their future financial libiability to the childen they mutilate today. If doctors won’t stop circumcision because it is wrong (unneccessary and harmful) maybe they will stop because circumcision will be harmful to their own pocketbooks.
LikeLike